Fuelled by publicity?

[HelenaWojtczak]

I was just reading these threads when an idea popped into my head, so I thought I would share it for discussion ....

JtR received an awful lot of press coverage, partly because as a result of the 1870 Education Act, far more of the working masses could read than had previously been the case.

Could it be that JtR committed one murder (possibly random, possibly in anger against the individual killed) and so enjoyed the resultant sensationalist press coverage that it spurred him to do it again?

Could someone so enjoy having got away with the initial killing, and then reading that the police had not charged anyone, that was partly the reason he did it again? As the killings numbered two and three, the press coverage increased, including sensationalist gutter press... complete with photos and drawings, maybe he enjoyed reading that he was keeping the whole of the East End in terror and the police totally baffled?

Maybe he enjoyed seeing his crimes described so salaciously in the press - may have made him feel proud, important, untouchable, uncatchable, more clever than all the policemen in the Met and COL force? Could not these things have been thrilling to an egotist or megalomaniac -- or indeed to someone with very low self esteem who'd never achieved anything in his life? With the killings he achieved fame.

Not necessarily the whole motive for the series that followed -- though in some warped minds, perhaps it could have been?

Glad to hear your opinions on this.

Helena

[K-453]

When reading through the dissertations, I spontaneously thought: What a boaster! (“Jack”, I mean.)

All this killing “rite under the nose” of the police, and then he left the corpses, of which he must have known what horrible sight they were, at places where they would be found within a few hours. Or even minutes. Like he wanted to say: “Look what I’ve done. Look what I’m capable to. I’m behind you. Tremble with fear!”

Remember, he didn’t torture his victims. He killed them as fast as possible (and he was really fast!) and then mutilated them.

This looks like publicity was part of his Ripper Show. Maybe the killing spree had turned out less extreme without press coverage. Maybe it still had … because this wasn’t the only reason for the killings.

Whoever wrote the Ripper letters, “Jack” himself or some hoaxer(s), they got his sinister triumph quite right.

[lynn cates]

or . . .

Hello Helena. Or something close--a lunatic who killed 2 women, and another person, or persons, unknown who now held a "get out of jail free card" whilst the lunatic was committed to an asylum?

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Don't give me ideas...

This is a pretty good dissertation Helena about press reports and copycats if you haven't read it.........

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-heartless.html

Greg

[kensei]

I think it's pretty likely that Jack's primary drive was one of sexual thrill that he derived from mutilating women, but as a secondary motivation I have stated several times that when I study the facts of the case I see an adrenaline junkie. Kind of reminds me of Heath Ledger's Joker in "The Dark Knight"- "Do I really look like a guy with a plan? I just do things. I'm like a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it!"

I mean, obviously he had to have thought things through pretty carefully, but he also took enormous risks and sometimes escaped only through blind luck as a result. The ultimate example is how he hung around during the manhunt after the double event to drop the apron fragment underneath the graffito. When he finally reached safety after killing two women and also avoiding ALL THOSE COPS he must have been practically bouncing off the walls. "Yes!!! I am a god!!!!" I don't imagine he got much sleep that night.

So when it comes to his press coverage, yes- if he was literate, that is- I would expect that he collected press clippings of himself as other serial killers have done and laughed out loud at them and just bathed in the attention. Reading that he was described as a supernatural force that just "dropped through a trapdoor in the earth" would have made him feel ten feet tall and bulletproof. Not that seeking out such publicity had been his original goal, it was just a biproduct that he reveled in. Which makes me seriously consider the idea that he would have responded to all the attention to keep it going, and that at least some of the Ripper letters are genuine.

[Phil H]

The answer, surely, must relate to whom one sees as "Jack"?

Would Aaron Kosminski have been able to read English language papers or have had them read to him? He might have heard word on the street, I suppose, but that would have required a sifting through the Polish community, would it not?

On the other hand, a Druitt, a Le Grand, a Tumblety might have responded or played up to the coverage and comments.

Then, we have had books that say there was no "Jack" the whole thing was the media linking otherwise unassociated murders into a series - even providing a name.

On balance, I suspect that JtR was a denizen of the East End who at certain times went out to kill, picked on drunk, old or relatively defenceless woman and killed them in a way that reflected his growing experience and his needs -whatever they were.

I would not deny that "displaying" his work was part of that - he was probably disturned in doing that for Nichols, but succeeded with Chapman and Eddowes - splayed legs, skirts up. (MJK and Stride were probably not his work, just linked to him by the police and press.) That said, it is possible that the position of the bodies was simply how they naturally fell as he worked on them, and was not deliberate.

Phil

[kensei]

A further thought- I remember reading that when Ted Bundy first started out he kind of had the thought, "Well, people disappear all the time. As long as I'm careful, this will hardly be noticed." Instead, he found a thorough and methodical coverage of his crimes in the press, the fact that he had in fact been noticed, yet he continued and spaced his killings out at about one a month, trying his best to conceal the body each time. He valued his freedom, and he feared losing it.

Jack the Ripper on the other hand seems to have thought "Of course this is going to be noticed," he made no attempt to cover up his crimes, and he struck rapid fire, several killings within a short span of time in spite of press coverage that was not laid back and methodical but garish and sensational. Clearly, he had no fear.

[Phil H]

Jack the Ripper on the other hand seems to have thought "Of course this is going to be noticed," he made no attempt to cover up his crimes, and he struck rapid fire, several killings within a short span of time in spite of press coverage that was not laid back and methodical but garish and sensational. Clearly, he had no fear.

Or did he just not care?

Did he just get an "urge" go out, find a random victim - strike them down at the point to which they led him, and leave the body as it lay? Was he even conscious of the need to be careful - other than the most perfunctory (maybe he was just lucky) - or even aware of the press coverage except in a general way. If only 3 victims were his, then it may have been over before much other than the Leather Apron frenzy.

Phil

[bolo]

Hi Helena, all,

given the growing public hysteria after every new murder, it seems impossible to me that the killer did not notice the impact his work had on the general public even if he was illiterate or a non-English speaking immigrant. As far as I can tell, the perception of the killer as a cunning and invincible mastermind was shared by both the press and the majority of the people in the East End and elsewhere, maybe this made him more daring or even inspired him to live up to the hype to some extend.

Overall I'm with kensei here, publicity may not have been his primary motivation but it is not unreasonable to assume that he liked being rated as a clever little bastard the police are unable to catch.

Regards,

Boris

[Phil H]

...publicity may not have been his primary motivation but it is not unreasonable to assume that he liked being rated as a clever little bastard the police are unable to catch.

But doesn't such a view depend on the numbers he killed and when. Nichols and Chapman had been killed before any real press interest flared up.

If one were to exclude Stride and Kelly as "domestics", then he killed only Eddowes thereafter. I might be inclined to add McKenzie to the tally (as I see her potentially as a late Ripper murder) but that was well after the main frenzy.

Note please, that I am not here trying to argue for any specific number of murders, but this is (to my thinking) a clear example of shaping our theories (loosely) to an unproven conventional wisdom - remove that and the theory sinks.

If publicity were the motivation, or press coverage egged him on, one would expect more murders quickly after Chapman (after all, only a week separated Polly and Annie - but we do not get that.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

I'm with Kensei in that I don't think that the publicity was his primary motivation, but I do think that he got off on it.

Indeed, I think that the increasing daring, escalation in the mutilations and posing of the victims was possibly in reaction to the Press response (not to disappoint them).

So I have the idea that he was literate, or enjoyed hearing the papers read aloud and the crimes discussed. It probably kept the 'buzz' going after the actual murder.

I don't personally believe in any of the letters.

It is no secret at all that my favourite suspect is George Hutchinson, and I have wondered about his apparent eagerness to speak to the Press after
Kelly's murder, and give them his 'witness account' and rather dramatically villianous description of the supposed killer (straight out of a victorian melodrama), and whether this wasn't just a continued to wish to manipulate the Press and see printed his own invented scenarios ?

As to Phil remarking on the gaps between murders -that's probably got a 'practical' root -or an ocd obsesssion with the dates..

[Phil H]

As to Phil remarking on the gaps between murders -that's probably got a 'practical' root -or an ocd obsesssion with the dates..

So that's settled THAT with absolute certainty then!!

Phil

[Rubyretro]

As to Phil remarking on the gaps between murders -that's probably got a 'practical' root -or an ocd obsesssion with the dates..

So that's settled THAT with absolute certainty then!!

Phil

ooops sorry, Phil !

It might have a practical root, or even, perhaps, an ocd obsession with the dates...

[Phil H]

I wasn't really questioning anything Ruby - just amused that you gave us alternative explanations: practicality or ocd.

I'm just not sure the dates tell us anything unless we know how many he killed and more about his motivation. Until then you can do what you want with the dates. Even what appear to be patterns could be coincidences.

In my time, I've seen associations with royal anniversaries (some mind-bogglingly obscure); attempts to show that the timings indicate what sort of worker the man was (or wasn't if unemployed); even correlations with Druitt's cricketing calendar.

I'm inclined to the practical - he went out when he was able; or the random: he struck when the urge took him. If he only killed three (four even as Stride would be on the same day as Eddowes), I don't know that that is enough to create a pattern.

There MIGHT be room to assume something if we were sure MJK was a victim of the same murderer, but I no longer am certain of that, so the comparatively long absence of a killing could mean nothing; could indeed, be aevidence that Mary died by another hand.

Interpretation is SO difficult.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

Sorry, Phil, I misunderstood you.

I was just replying to your statement:

If publicity were the motivation, or press coverage egged him on, one would expect more murders quickly after Chapman (after all, only a week separated Polly and Annie - but we do not get that.

Obviously, I don't know at all why there was a gap between killings -but they appear to make 'sense' with the two possible reasons that I gave....(which are obviously very 'large').

If the killer had been 'bound' by one or the other (a practical reason, or an ocd dictated reason), then we couldn't 'expect' more frequent killings in response to Press coverage -only more daring and showy killings....